NationStates Jolt Archive

Unionization Act (Draft 1)
Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are acknowledged by the state, by religious authority, or by both. Why must the church have any say?
This act will make the term "marriage" obsolete, replacing it with the term "unionized". Two people, regardless of sexual orientation and gender, will be able to become "unionized". This act purely is designed to further separate church and state.

Summary:

1. The term "marriage" will be changed to "unionized"
A. Separates church and state
B. Everyone is "unionized", no longer "married"
C. All benefits of marriage are included, the name just changed
D. Much more modern, broader terminology

Also, I need the endorsements to actually propose this.

You want to change the language of every nation on the plannet? It doesn't matter what the WA chooses to call something. Besides, the ways in which we have re-constictuted marriages and civil unions in the past have basiclly removed any religous dictatorship over state matters.

Good luck with any future propsals, but I don' think this is needed at the current time.

Additionally, only people in your region can endorse you. You should ask them.

Unionization Act (Draft 1)
Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are acknowledged by the state, by religious authority, or by both. Why must the church have any say?
This act will make the term "marriage" obsolete, replacing it with the term "unionized". Two people, regardless of sexual orientation and gender, will be able to become "unionized". This act purely is designed to further separate church and state.

Summary:

1. The term "marriage" will be changed to "unionized"
A. Separates church and state
B. Everyone is "unionized", no longer "married"
C. All benefits of marriage are included, the name just changed
D. Much more modern, broader terminology

Also, I need the endorsements to actually propose this.

1. This is poorly drafted.

2. This is unecessary and/or illegal. Check out The Freedom of Marriage Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13981509&postcount=17).

3. There is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Marriage is a fundamental institution and a fundamental right of all persons. There is no need to deny it to everyone just because some religions disagree with the use of the label for some unions.

4. Although we don't agree philosophically with such nations, many nations have state religions and/or don't recognize separation of Church and State. I think this very unwise and unfair, but even I am not convinced the WA should meddle in this. I might well support a proposal guaranteeing freedom of religion for all inhabitants of member states, but you would face fierce opposition.

We are grateful that the honoured ambassador has insufficient endorsements to set this poorly thought through proposal into motion. In a spirit of unhelpfulness, we would ask what category and strength the ambassador believes this proposal to be; we suspect the answer will be slow in coming since despite the outrageous claims made, the meat of the proposal does exactly nothing.

1. This is poorly drafted.

2. This is unecessary and/or illegal. Check out The Freedom of Marriage Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13981509&postcount=17).

3. There is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Marriage is a fundamental institution and a fundamental right of all persons. There is no need to deny it to everyone just because some religions disagree with the use of the label for some unions.

4. Although we don't agree philosophically with such nations, many nations have state religions and/or don't recognize separation of Church and State. I think this very unwise and unfair, but even I am not convinced the WA should meddle in this. I might well support a proposal guaranteeing freedom of religion for all inhabitants of member states, but you would face fierce opposition.


Thankfully a freedom of worship statute is obviated by several already ratified statutes but in all other particulars we concur with the esteemed and honoured Ambassador for The Cat-Tribe.

Yours,